Bach v. Gleason

• Decision Date: 09 December 2022
• Docket Number: 5:22-cv-262-MCR/MJF
• Parties: JACQUELINE BACH, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD GLEASON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

JACQUELINE BACH, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD GLEASON, Defendant.

No. 5:22-cv-262-MCR/MJF

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division

December 9, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant Richard Gleason removed this eviction action from the County Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Bay County, Florida. Because the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, the District Court should remand this action to the state court from which this case originated.

I. Background

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff Jacqueline Bach-Gleason's landlord- initiated an eviction action against Gleason in the County Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Bay County, Florida. Doc. 1 at 4-5; Bach v. Gleason, No. 22002555CC (Fla. Bay County Ct. Sept. 9, 2022). Bach alleged that Gleason failed to pay rent for August and September 2022: a total of $1,960. Doc. 1 at 4. The rental property at issue is located in Panama City, Florida. Id.

1

On November 10, 2022, Gleason removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In his notice of removal, Gleason asserted that this action involves claims under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (“FHA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as well as procedural due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1-2. Bach currently lives in Duluth, Georgia. At the time Gleason removed this action to federal court, he lived in Panama City, Florida. Id. at 4.

On November 14, 2022, after reviewing Gleason's notice of removal and determining that the District Court likely lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the undersigned ordered Gleason to explain and show cause why this action should not be remanded to the court from which it originated. Doc. 4. The undersigned imposed a deadline of December 5, 2022 to comply. The undersigned warned Gleason that his failure to comply would cause the undersigned to presume that Gleason consents to this action being remanded to the state court because the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. As of the date of this report and recommendation, Gleason has not complied with the undersigned's order.^[1]

2

II. Discussion

Except as otherwise provided by Congress, a defendant may remove to federal district court any civil action brought in state court over which a federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, however, the defendant must demonstrate that the federal district court enjoys subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, either through diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction or federal-question jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005); Hawkinson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 325 F.Supp.3d 1293, 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2018). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the court enjoys subject-matter jurisdiction. Stern v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 424 F.Supp.3d 1264, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Furthermore, the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009).

A. The District Court Lacks Diversity-of-Citizenship Jurisdiction

Diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction requires (1) complete diversity of the parties' citizenship and...